Miras Eğitimi ve Aktif Öğrenme: Türkiye’de Toplumun Geliştirilmesi ve Çeşitliliğin Teşvik Edilmesi

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 13, 159 - 175, 30.06.2023

Alan Michael Greaves

Öz

Miras eğitimi, Orta Doğu ve Kuzey Afrika (ODKA) ülkelerindeki arkeolojik alanların tahribatına karşı küresel tepkinin bir parçasıdır ve Türk devletinin ve Türkiye'deki Suriyeli göçmenlerle çalışan STK'ların ikincil entegrasyon önceliklerine ulaşmada önemli olacaktır. Ancak, farklı ODKA topluluklarında miras eğitimi uygulamalarının etkinliği ve pedagojisi yeterince araştırılmamıştır. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye'nin güneybatısında yer alan Fethiye'de 169 öğretmen ve yaklaşık 2.800 çocuğun katıldığı bir pilot projeden elde edilen nicel ve nitel değerlendirme verileri sunulmaktadır. Aktif öğrenmenin pedagojik ilkelerine dayanan eğitsel oyunlar ilgiyle karşılanmış ve katılımcıların kültürel miras konusundaki farkındalıklarını artırmıştır ancak öğretmenlerin bu oyunları uygulama konusundaki güvenleri, eğitimden sonra bile, düşük kalmıştır. Aktif Öğrenme, hem yerel hem de göçmen grupları, miraslarının tartışmalı anlamlara sahip olduğu durumlarda bile, yaşadıkları ortak alanla etkili bir şekilde ilişkilendirir ve miras eğitimi, çatışmanın neden olduğu yıkım ve göç yaşayan topluluklar için uzun vadeli sosyal faydalar sağlayabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Miras Yönetimi, Eğitim, Aktif Öğrenme

Kaynakça

• Açıkel A. 2018. A Prolonged Residency: Syrian Refugees’ Crises of Integration into Turkey. İstanbul. Anderson L. W. (ed.) 1994. Bloom's Taxonomy. Chicago, IL.
• Anderson L. & Krathwohl D. (eds.) 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York.
• Apaydin V. 2016. “Effective or not? Success or Failure? Assessing Heritage and Archaeological Education Programmes – the Case of Çatalhöyük”. International Journal of Heritage Studies 22/10, 828-843. DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2016.1218912
• Apaydin V. 2019. “Publicising Archaeology and Heritage: The Role of Education and Local Museums”. Ed. I. Gürsu, Public Archaeology: Theoretical Approaches and Current Practices. London, 73-79.
• Apaydin V. 2016. “Development and Re-configuration of Heritage Perception: History Textbooks and Curriculum”. AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology 6, 27-50.
• Apaydin V. 2017. “Heritage Values and Communities: Examining Heritage Perceptions and Public Engagements”. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 5/3, 349-363.
• Ashworth G. J. & Graham B. (eds.) 2005. Senses of Place: Senses of Time. Aldershot.
• Atakuman Ç. 2008. “Cradle or Crucible: Anatolia and Archaeology in the Early Years of the Turkish Republic (1923-1938)”. Journal of Social Archaeology 8/2, 214-235. DOI: 10.1177/1469605308089965
• Bennett-Cook R. 2022. “Fethiye: Turkey’s ‘Little Britain’ – Residential Tourists’ Identity and Relationships.” Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change. DOI: 10.1080/14766825.2022.2120817
• Bourdieu P. 1986. “The Forms of Capital”. Ed. J. Richardson, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York, 241-258.
• Cantle T. 2012. Interculturalism: The New Era of Cohesion and Diversity. Springer.
• Cattaneo K. H. 2017. “Telling Active Learning Pedagogies Apart: From Theory to Practice”. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research (NAER Journal) 6/2, 144-152.
• Chiovenda M. K. 2014. “Sacred Blasphemy: Global and Local Views of the Destruction of the Bamyan Buddha Statues in Afghanistan”. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 34/4, 410-424. DOI: 10.1080/13602004.2014.984904
• Churches A. 2008. Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. Available from: http://burtonslifelearning.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/26327358/BloomDigitalTaxonomy2001.pdf (Accessed 02.09.21).
• Cohen A. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. London.
• CIC 2007. Our Shared Future. Commission on Integration and Cohesion.
• CPIN Country Policy and Information Note 2017. Turkey: Alevis (Version 2.0). Home Office. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/635 585/Turkey_-_Alevis_-_CPIN_-_v2.0__August_2017_.pdf
• Endacott J. L. & Brooks S. 2013. “An Updated Theoretical and Practical Model for Promoting Historical Empathy”. Social Studies Research and Practice 8/1, 41-58.
• FETAV, 2018. The Evaluation of the Carved in Stone Project’s Drama and Museum Education Seminar (Report). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2020.1804135
• Fiddan-Quesmiyag E. 2020. Refuge in a Moving World: Tracing Refugee and Migrant Journeys Across Disciplines. London.
• Freire P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York.
• Girard M. 2015. “What Heritage Tells Us About the Turkish State and Turkish Society”. European Journal of Turkish Studies [Online] 20. URL:http://journals.openedition.org/ejts/5227. DOI: 10.4000/ejts.5227.
• Goins E. 2010. “Museum Games and the Third Space”. [Unpublished paper]. Available at: http://meaningfulplay.msu.edu/proceedings2010/mp2010_paper_26.pdf [Accessed 10 July 2020].
• Greaves A. M. 2019. “New Archaeological and Epigraphic Survey Work in the Ancient City of Telmessos (Fethiye)”. ANMED 17, 69-74.
• Greaves A. M. 2020. Carved in Stone Evaluation Report: RTI Training and Community Education for Heritage Conservation. Liverpool.
• Greaves A. M., S. M. Duffy, J.R. Peterson, Ş. R. Tekoğlu & A. Hirt 2020. “Carved in Stone: Field Trials of Virtual Reflectance Transformation Imaging (V-RTI) in Classical Telmessos (Fethiye)”. Journal of Field Archaeology 45/7, 442-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2020.1804135
• Güner B. 2017. “Some Evaluations Concerning Urban to Urban Migration in Turkey”. MJH 7/1, 205-212.
• Hofer B. K. 2002. “Personal Epistemology as a Psychological and Educational Construct: An Introduction”.
• Eds. B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich, Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing. New York, 3-14.
• Hofer B. K. & Pintrich P. R. 2012. Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing. New York.
• Isakhan B. & Gonzalez A. 2015. Funding the ‘Islamic State’: Looting Antiquities and the International Black Market. Department of Defence, Canberra, A.C.T.
• Johnson R. T. & David W. J. 2008. “Active Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom”. The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan 47, 29-30.
• Jonassen D. H. 1991. “Objectivism vs. Constructivism: Do We Need a New Paradigm?”. Educational Technology Research and Development 39/3, 5-14. DOI: 10.1007/BF02296434
• Krathwohl D. R., 2002. “A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview”. Theory into Practice 41/4, 212-218.
• Labadi S. 2017. Museums, Immigrants, and Social Justice. Routledge.
• Lauricella A., J. Cannon, S. Branting & E. Hammer 2017. “Semi-Automated Detection of Looting in Afghanistan Using Multispectral Imagery and Principal Component Analysis”. Antiquity 91/359, 1344-1355. DOI: 10.15184/aqy.2017.90
• Livesley D. & Akatay J. 2012. A Guide to Kayaköy.
• Fethiye. Lynch B. 2021. “Introduction: Neither Helpful nor Unhelpful – A Clear Way Forward for the Useful Museum”. Eds. A. Chynoweth, B. Lynch K. Petersen & S. Smed, Museums and Social Change. Challenging the Unhelpful Museum, 1-32.
• Marshall Y. 2002. “What is Community Archaeology?”. World Archaeology 34/2, 211-219. DOI: 10.1080/0043824022000007062
• Michael J. 2006. “Where’s the Evidence that Active Learning Works?”. Advances in Physiology Education 30/4, 159-167. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
• Niemi H. 2002. “Active Learning – A Cultural Change Needed in Teacher Education and Schools”. Teaching and Teacher Education 18/7, 763-780. DOI: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00042-2
• Norman G. R. & Schmidt H. G. 1992. “The Psychological Basis of Problem-based Learning: A Review of the Evidence”. Academic Medicine 67/9, 557-565. DOI:10.1097/00001888-199209000-00002
• Ratcliffe P. 2012. “‘Community Cohesion’: Reflections on a Flawed Paradigm”. Critical Social Policy 32/2, 262-281. DOI:10.1177/0261018311430455
• Roosevelt C. H. & Luke C. 2006. “Looting Lydia: The Destruction of an Archaeological
• Landscape”. Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade, 173-187.
• Scherr R. E. & Hammer D. 2009. “Student Behavior and Epistemological Framing: Examples from Collaborative Active-Learning Activities in Physics”. Cognition and Instruction 27/2, 147-174. DOI: 10.1080/07370000902797379
• Shankland D. 2003. The Alevis in Turkey: The Emergence of a Secular Islamic Tradition. London.
• Silberman M. 1996. L: 101 Strategies to Teach Any Subject. Prentice-Hall.Sosniak L. A. 1994. Bloom's Taxonomy. Chicago, IL.
• Stone P. G. 1985. “Education – An Opportunity and an Obligation”. Rescue News 37/2, 10-15.
• Taş T. & Taş O. 2014. “Resistance on the Walls, Reclaiming Public Space: Street Art in Times of Political Turmoil in Turkey”. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture 5/3, 327-349. DOI: 10.1386/iscc.5.3.327_1
• Thomas P. 2011. Youth, Multiculturalism and Community Cohesion. New York.
• Tileston D. E. W. 2006. Teaching Strategies for Active Learning: Five Essentials for Your Teaching Plan. Thousand Oaks.
• Balatı Tırpan S. 2019. “The Rupture Between Archaeological ‘Sites’ and Local Communities”. Ed. I.
• Gursu, Public Archaeology: Theoretical Approaches & Current Practices. London, 51-65.
• UNHCR 2018. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Annual Report for June 30 2017-June 30 2018 (A73/12) Part 1. Available from: www.unhcr.org.
• Vosniadou S., C. Ioannides, A. Dimitrakopoulou & E. Papademetriou 2001. “Designing Learning Environments to Promote Conceptual Change in Science”. Learning and Instruction 11, 381-419. DOI:10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00038-4
• Yıldırım O. 2007. Diplomacy and Displacement: Reconsidering the Turco-Greek Exchange of Populations, 1922-1934. New York.
• Zahle J. 1980. “Lycian Tombs and Lycian Cities”. Ed. H. Metzger, Actes du colloque sur la Lycie antique. İstanbul, 37-49.